HC Deb 30 March 1999 vol 328 cc987-9
Mr. Byers

I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 2, leave out from beginning of line 22 to end of line 17 on page 3 and insert— '. Schedule (Ballots and notices) shall have effect.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 13, in clause 5, page 3, line 17, after 'union', insert '(or, if acting together, unions)'. Government new schedule 1.

Government amendment No. 52.

Mr. Byers

I invite the House to resist amendment No. 13.

I will be brief but, obviously, in reply to the debate, I will try to answer any questions that might be raised. However, I hope that we can make progress because some important groups of amendments are coming up, on which hon. Members want to speak.

The Government have made it clear that they intend to retain the key elements of the law on industrial action. Nothing in the Bill or in the amendments infringes that principle. For example, ballots will still be held, notices must still be given and secondary action will remain unlawful. However, by common consent, current law on industrial action and, in particular, on balloting is extremely complex. In some cases, the burdens arising from the present procedures serve no useful purpose in extending democratic accountability within unions; nor do they always help employers to resolve a dispute or to mitigate the consequences of action.

Our amendments seek to make the situation easier for trade unions and employers. Our approach will ensure that both parties can concentrate on resolving a dispute, rather than being bogged down in detailed discussions about whether the complexity of the present procedures has been followed in all its forms. A number of proposals achieve those ends. They are relatively technical, and I hope that the House will be able to agree with them in that spirit. However, I will reply to any questions that hon. Members may have.

I invite the House to resist amendment No. 13. I believe that the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) tabled it in a genuine spirit to try to foster good industrial relations. However, there are difficulties. The existing procedures, and those in new schedule 1, require trade unions to ballot independently. It is important that that should be continued. However, there is nothing to prevent trade unions from voluntarily doing that in a concerted way, so that ballots can be held at roughly the same time, and so that results can be declared and employers informed. There is much merit in that joint and co-operative approach, which we commend as good practice. However, we are not convinced that adopting the rather restrictive approach suggested in amendment No. 13 would be in the best interests of good industrial relations.

Following that brief explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Daventry will feel able to withdraw amendment No. 13, and agree that our proposals will address some of the present complexities and ensure that we can make good progress in supporting good industrial relations.

Mr. Boswell

The Secretary of State correctly interpreted my intentions in relation to amendment No. 13, which I will not press in light of what he has said. However, I re-emphasise that it is important for unions to work together whenever possible. It will look odd if one union has not applied the four-weeks rule and another has. Circumstances could arise where that was the case.

New schedule 1 appears to be broadly acceptable. In certain respects—particularly the notice provisions—it seems positively sensible to enable unions to comply with a court order or an agreement with the employers to suspend the period. I wish to refer to proposed paragraph (2)(bb) because I simply do not understand what it means. Perhaps the Secretary of State could drop me a line about that.

Could the Secretary of State confirm that the intention is that, on the voting paper, action short of a strike should include an overtime ban and a call-out ban? Reference has been made to consideration in due course to a proposal to reduce the period of protection to four weeks. We would not wish to concede that at this stage.

On inducement, the new schedule does not make clear the circumstances that are envisaged. I am not sure whether a member of a union who does not join in a ballot would be protected. I think that he would be for the protected period, but not thereafter. Perhaps the Secretary of State can look into that and respond in due course. Like the rest of the schedule, it may well be better addressed by those who brief us, and they may need a little more time to look at the implications. If they do, further amendments could be considered in another place.

12 midnight

Mr. Byers

I shall try to respond briefly to the specific issues that have been raised. The hon. Gentleman is right about overtime and call-out bans; they are included in action short of strike action. He also mentioned the health warning on the ballot paper, and I can confirm that we shall ensure that the attention of individual members is drawn to the effects of the measures—a point that was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady).

As for non-balloted members being invited to take industrial action, the alteration is designed to deal with individuals who may have changed jobs in the period between the ballot and the taking of the action.

I think that those were the three main issues raised by the hon. Member for Daventry. If there are any others, I shall respond to them in writing.

Amendment agreed to.

Back to
Forward to